Argument47 【0706G-Hamming小组】第二次作业

sisong2003UID: 2154005

TOPIC: ARGUMENT47 - Scientists studying historical weather patterns have discovered that in the mid-sixth century, Earth suddenly became significantly cooler. Although few historical records survive from that time, some accounts found both in Asia and Europe mention a dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures. Either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding with Earth could have created a large dust cloud throughout Earth's atmosphere that would have been capable of blocking enough sunlight to lower global temperatures significantly. A large meteorite collision, however, would probably create a sudden bright flash of light, and no extant historical records of the time mention such a flash. Some surviving Asian historical records of the time, however, mention a loud boom that would be consistent with a volcanic eruption. Therefore, the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.
WORDS: 429          TIME: 1:12:37          DATE: 2006-12-2

提纲：
1.       太阳变暗和寒冷可能是由于太阳活动变弱造成
2.       没有闪光的记录不表明没有发生过
3.  巨大声响不一定是火山

The author concludes that the suddenly significant cooling of earth in the mid-six century is caused by the volcanic eruption. However, the argument contains several logical flaws. First, the author hastily generalize that the cause of earth cooling is either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding created a large dust cloud blocking enough sunlight. In addition, the author simply equals no extant historical records of a sudden bright flash of light to no flash of light ever happened. The author also fails to provide clear evidence that the loud boom was volcanic eruption. I will discuss each of these flaws in turn.

To begin with, the author claims the mention of dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperature in some accounts duing to the large dust cloud caused by the volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding -blocking enough sunlight. However, the author ignores a significant factor that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures may be caused by the weaker activities of the sun itself. If so, the sun gives off less light and heat, and the earth accordingly receives less. Without providing evidence if the sun was active then, the author convinces me little.

Moreover, no extant historical records of that time mention a flash creating by a large meteorite collision doesn't means there was none ever took place. The author overlooks a host of possible reasons for no records of the time mention a flash. Perhaps the flash happened in the deep ocean or in the polar place that seldom had people seeing it-let alone to record it. Or, may be there are some records of such a flash, but unfortunately ruined during such a long period of time. Without ruling out other possible explanations for no extant historical record, the author cannot convince me of it was not caused by the meteorite collision.

Finally, the author claims the loud boom was consistent with a volcanic eruption is unjustified. The author provides no evidence that the boom was just volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom is caused by the earthquake, avalanche or even tsunami. Lacking compelling evidences the author cannot simply convince me that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that the sun was normal at that time, and the main factor of dimming of sunlight may be cause by the dust cloud. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know the activities of volcano at that time.

[ 本帖最后由 sisong2003 于 2006-12-2 00:47 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

你和hugo010311互改，第一周加进来时间有点紧，
加油！！:)

hugo010311UID: 2237388

The author concludes that the suddenly significant cooling of earth in the mid-six century is （probably）caused by the volcanic eruption. However, the argument contains several logical flaws. First, the author hastily generalize that the cause of earth cooling is either a huge volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding created a large dust cloud blocking enough sunlight. In addition, the author simply equals no extant historical records of a sudden bright flash of light to no flash of light ever happened. The author also fails to provide clear evidence that the loud boom was volcanic eruption. I will discuss each of these flaws in turn.
(a original beginning para)
To begin with, the author claims the mention of dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperature in some accounts during to the large dust cloud caused by the volcanic eruption or a large meteorite colliding -blocking enough sunlight. However, the author ignores a significant factor that the dimming of the sun and extremely cold temperatures may be caused by the weaker activities of the sun itself. If so, the sun gives off less light and heat, and the earth accordingly receives less. Without providing evidence if the sun was active then, the author convinces me little.(deserve to learn)

Moreover, no extant historical records of that time mention a flash creating by a large meteorite collision does not mean there was none ever took place. The author overlooks a host of possible reasons for no records of the time mention a flash. Perhaps the flash happened in such（能省掉such/so么，我不确定） deep ocean or polar place that seldom had people saw it-let alone to record it. (deserve to learn!)Or may be there are some records of such a flash, but unfortunately ruined during such a long period of time. Without ruling out these possible explanations for no extant historical record, the author cannot convince me of it was not caused by the meteorite collision.

Finally, the author's claim that the loud boom was consistent with a volcanic eruption is unjustified. The author provides no evidence that the boom was just volcanic eruption. Perhaps the boom is caused by the earthquake, avalanche or even tsunami. Lacking compelling evidences the author cannot simply convince me that the cooling was probably caused by a volcanic eruption.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide clear evidence that the sun was normal at that time, and the main factor of dimming of sunlight may be cause by the dust cloud. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know the activities of volcano at that time.
(this argument feels nice and professional!!!)
加油！！


[ 本帖最后由 hugo010311 于 2006-12-3 23:07 编辑 ]

sisong2003UID: 2154005

thank u!!!